Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 10:58 +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote: >> I'd like to share informations and opinions to avoid duplicate >> works. Please comments. >> >> Some questions. >> - Is anyone already working on it? >> - What code base is best to begin with? >> Although the official xenLinux/IA64 tree is >> http://xenbits.xensource.com/ext/ia64/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg >> Does Fedora have any forward ported tree? > > This is definitely one of the tricky parts. Obviously we'll need > to submit patches against upstream Linux, but we'll likely need to > leverage the work of others for forward porting the core of the xen > enabled components. The Fedora Xen kernel module may be a reasonable > target, but there are probably lots of small architecture specific > parts we can isolate into functional chunks and clean-up for upstream > in the meantime. > >> Some thoughts. >> - domU first and then dom0. >> the domu/IA64 part would be easy because MMU is fully virtualized >> on IA64. > > Yes, this would also allow us to start out focused on architecture > specific parts while others solidify what the basis for dom0 looks > like on upstream. > >> - Coding Style >> The current code's style should be clean up. > > Definitely, although I think we've done a reasonable job matching > Linux coding style for XenLinux files, I'm sure we'll find examples to > the contrary. > >> - Although xenLinux/x86 uses pv_ops, probably the machine vector >> should be considered at first. Then consider on the ia64 pv_ops. > > Yes, it's been unclear to me the extent to which ia64 needs pv_ops. > We already have the xen machine vector and we may be able to expand > the machine vector to incorporate a few more things where it makes > sense. Then we need to see what pieces are left and whether it makes > sense to create an ia64 pv_ops or implement more of the binary > replacement type things we've discussed previously. > >> - The kernel initialization might need to be revised. >> Especially the hypervisor detection and the initialization order. > > I think all of the xenlinux code should be carefully reviewed and > re-evaluated as we try to get it upstream. This is also an > opportunity to improve the code. > >> - other VMM. >> Possibly kvm/ia64 or lguest/ia64 may have their opinion >> on paravirtualization. But their code aren't opened yet. >> This might make our merge easier or more difficult. >> Anyway we'll see. > > Yes, ia64 is at a bit of a disadvantage here since x86 has several > implementations of paravirtualization to help tune their pv_ops. We > should probably expect some of the interfaces to change over time as > new PV guests are added, but we should try to solicit feedback from > Jes and Xiantao as much as we can.
Worked with kvm community guys in last two months, we almost completed kvm re-frame work. Currently, I have almost compelted kvm/ia64 rebase per the new framwork of kvm, although it is still need to refine by commnunity. So, after performing internal process, we will send out our kvm/ia64 patches to community soon. :) Thanks for your attention! Xiantao _______________________________________________ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list Xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
